#sociopolitics

[positively--speculative]

I'm not going to say Gen Z looks "old" because I hate the implications surrounding that. What I will say is that Gen Z looks exhausted and that people associate that with looking old--and I think modern conservatism is to blame.

Millennials are the "trophy generation" sure, but we were encouraged and rewarded for trying new things. Our emotions were seen as valid when we cried. The adults who raised us weren't perfect, but at least a lot of them let us know we were special even if a number of them did a 180 on us when we entered adulthood and tried to find good paying jobs.

I feel like Gen Z was told to "suck it up" a lot growing up and adults didn't hesitate to tell them they sucked. I remember this famous athlete made the news because he told his kids to give their participation trophies back and he was applauded for that. Like, I feel like Gen Z's parents were obsessed with toughening their kids up instead of letting them be kids, and now in their late teens/early 20s, they're tired because they were forced to act like little adults instead of the kids they were. The wonderment of childhood was taken from them and now they cannot help but be pessimistic. That's not their fault.

[sprites4ever]

You bet that if it was a white, straight person, whom they trust and who makes no references to current events, who told anti-woke people about the fundamental values of the woke movement, those anti-woke people would agree.

Because, by their original definition from the origins of the woke movement, all the values that the woke movement champions, are very fundamental moral truths that pretty much everyone agrees are positive.

[satoriberry]

something that irks me sometimes is when people use the term "social justice", when what they're actually talking about is societal problems; not social. and the fact that some people think they're the same thing or even slightly synonymous is kinda worrying ngl erm....

[sasquapossum]

I know I've beaten this drum before, but here we go again: "everybody move to the city" is not the solution to car-culture and urban-design problems. In fact, I think it's part of the problem. Allow me to explain.

tl;dr it's all about the votes

First, let's figure out what "the city" means. Most large cities consist of two parts: a very dense core, and outlying areas which are practically the same as suburbs. Still vast tracts of single-family detached homes, sliced apart by "stroads" that isolate more than they connect. (For those who don't know the term, it's a portmanteau of "street" which is a place of commerce and "road" which is a way to get from one city/town to another. Stroads combine the worst of both, separating what's on either side with high-speed traffic.) A classic example is Detroit, which is one of the largest US cities geographically. The stroad near us when we lived in Detroit was actually worse than the one near us in an adjoining suburb (Hazel Park), in both we were surrounded by other SFD homes, in both we had major highways nearby, a dearth of stores, and so on.

So, "move to the city" can mean one of two different things: moving to the core, or to the outer areas. If you move from the suburbs to an outer area, that's what we in computing call a "no-op" - an instruction that does nothing. Neither the place you left nor the place you went to has or will change, except for a few exceptions I'll get to later. Most importantly, nothing has changed for you. You're still living in basically the same environment (except maybe a bit dirtier and with fewer trees). On the other hand, if you move to the core - the only version of "move to the city" that really means anything at all - you might have well improved conditions for yourself, at the expense of making that core even less affordable. You will also have added to the infrastructure challenges there. "New urbanists" like to talk about the infrastructure costs of sprawly suburbs, but for electrical power in particular there are equal challenges for dense urban cores. The optimal distribution is actually somewhere in between. This effect is somewhat attenuated for other kinds of infrastructure such as fresh water, food distribution, and waste disposal, but we still have to ask: how many more upstate New York communities have to host New York City's trash? And where do all those garbage trucks go at night? Hint: it's not near the people whose trash they're hauling. Another "externality" imposed on adjacent communities so that the core residents can forget about it.

If everyone tried to move from the suburbs to denser urban cores at once, it would be a disaster even for the cities themselves for all the reasons above, but there are other problems as well. What would happen to all of the abandoned buildings and infrastructure back in the suburbs? To get an idea, take a tour of the "Rust Belt" some time. That will show you quite clearly the human and ecological toll of emigration on such a scale. What a waste. With disasters at both ends, how is that a solution?

This is where we get to the other ill effect of people moving to the city. Everyone who leaves from a suburb to a city is leaving their vote behind. That leaves even fewer voters to do anything about zoning and other policies that make suburbs the way they are. I've seen it over and over; the people who care about creating walkable neighborhoods and reducing car dependence leave, so policy remains in the hands of people who want to keep things the same. That is, quite directly, why most suburbs have town centers that are sterile and useless - if they even exist. Too many suburbs don't even have a real center, just one or more extended strip malls.

What we need is not more 15-minute cities but more 15-minute towns. Thousands of them. Reconfiguring and repurposing existing structures, where people already live and will continue to live, instead of abandoning them and building even more in the cities. Mixed use, mixed income, medium density. The missing middle according to some. To achieve that goal, people need to stay and vote (or, even better, serve on town zoning boards and such). The day when the cities could absorb the nearer suburbs - as Detroit did once, to become so big - are gone. No suburb would submit to such incorporation in the current milieu of property values and school funding and so on. The weight of numbers from city dwellers can't be used to force change anywhere else at anything less than the state level. How well does that work? Again, Detroit - ringed by more prosperous suburbs - tells us the answer: not at all. Detroit has no influence over poor suburbs like Hazel Park or River Rouge, let alone rich ones like Birmingham or Bloomfield Hills.

Every town (or small city) that has succeeded in reversing the process of suburban sprawl, in creating walkable and pleasant but still affordable and ecologically sustainable neighborhoods, has done so through the efforts of residents who stayed and did the work. "Move to the city" is a religion among the privileged few (who must be few for it to work at all), not a solution for the many. As long as it's the mantra among self-styled "new urbanists" we will all get exactly nowhere. Let go of that idea. Embrace strong towns instead.

[llamasgotoheaven]

Try and guess which socioeconomic tradition I am describing based on these bullet points…

-a man is granted the chance to access a woman’s sexuality, attention and presence in exchange for providing her with financial assets.

… I just described three concepts: marriage, dating, and sex work. An interesting difference between the two latter practices and marriage, is that marriage has pretty much always involved decision making by the woman in question’s family. This, along with religious glorification has somehow made it more socially acceptable.

[leam1983]

And there it is, folks.

Society won't ever be ideal. So many people on here harp on about Solarpunk and dream of a future where we'll be swaddled in the morally comfy embrace of Sustainable Everything; and the fact is most of our current lifestyle choices come with sacrifices, and most of those we could make will also come with things we'll have to leave behind.

There is no such thing as a Perfect Socialist and no such thing as a set of conditions that's so perfect as to allow the scales to fall off of the eyes of the right people. The Revolution won't fix us, there is no socioeconomical model or greater praxis that is entirely without fault - and it absolutely is human to make choices that seem counter-indicative to the Greater Good.

We're human, at the end of the day. We're self-centered, faillible and greedy at the best of times, simply because those traits were inherited from ancestors that lived with scarcity, apex predators or open warfare on their doorsteps.

Never delude yourselves into thinking the Next Best Thing will fix us. What makes Humanity work is Humanity itself - and not everyone will reach that understanding. For every Solarpunk commune, there's going to be wannabe Mad Max-grade raiding parties who fail to give a crap about sustainability, and even more people who would want to keep our current socioeconomic model going well past its breaking point - because we're human.

Assuming Americans read this, you know exactly who I'm talking about. The Fox News jabronis and the well-meaning Left-of-Centre intellectuals who still frame anything Collectivist as being Un-American.

Hot take of the day: a worrying number of leftists are actually just Evangelical Christians with the serial numbers filed off

The world is sinful a capitalist hellscape but we just have to wait until the Second Coming the Revolution happens when everything will be magically fixed. Any attempt to make actual progress makes you a lukewarm Christian liberal anything less than the Apocalypse the Revolution (which we are forever waiting for btw) is completely useless . Also consuming certain media or makin certain lifestyle choices is sinful and unchristian bad praxis.

[ririwithrice]

the whole “doctors make you more sick so they get more money” thing is like a restaurant making bad food so you stay hungry.

[necronominomnom]

On Tyranny: Lesson 1

Lessons On Tyranny: Lesson One

In my last post, I started discussing the author and the book On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century and discussed that I would be going into further detail on the lessons found in the book. With the “switching sides” of various “left-wing” media companies and their pundits, I figured this would be the best time to discuss lesson 1 from the book and how it relates to current…

[positively--speculative]

Hey, if you call yourself a punk or goth (or any alternative) but also consider your politics conservative or neutral, you should probably be paying attention to these anti-drag bills getting pushed. Because if you consider yourself a part of a subculture that has famously challenged gender norms, especially by appearance, you are probably going to have a hard time with these proposed laws too.

I will never not find it ironic and hilarious how those of you who consider yourselves alternative will either support or ignore this stuff while patting yourselves on the back for "not conforming." Those conservatives who you vote for or don't care enough about to fight against hate your asses too.

[msilr]

Seconding @rubynye's tag rant, men are just people who sometimes benefit from the patriarchy, sometimes are brainwashed by it, and sometimes are victims of it.

hello online feminist do you hate men as an extension of the hierarchical class they create, uphold and coercively enforce in society or do you hate men because you genuinely believe they are evil through an inherent biological heritage that cannot be mended

[gordiita]

i dont believe that self-governance is compatible with human nature nor do i believe that complete and utter anarchy is ever in the best interest of humanity. this is because pure good and pure evil are ever present in individuals; good and evil will forever be at odds.

[sprites4ever]

On the United States of America and their Capitalism

From a left-wing perspective, the Issue with the United States' system is not the system itself, but the execution thereof.

What many young American Left-wingers fail to realize is that their experience with the Liberal-Democratic Federal Republic with a capitalist market is limited to what it is like in the United States.

In other first world countries, e.g. France, Germany, Sweden etc., the same system works better because of a better execution.

The government spends more on the improvement and spreading of public services, infrastructure and education, intervenes in the market via cartel regulation if unfair competition arises and stops private entities from exploiting citizens via antitrust laws. Speaking from experience as a citizen of Germany, I can say that, while this system is far from perfect, my country's execution of it is pretty damn good and makes my country one of the best to live in.

The great President Theodore Roosevelt had a similar vision.

But despite having been more moderate, his own Republican Party back then already blocked him from making most of it a reality. If it weren't for the Republican Party during and after Roosevelt since, this execution would have caught on.

In regards to its NATO allies, the United States would not even need to cut back on the military budget to make this happen. Yes, European NATO countries have to choose between social and military budget, but the United States are so much richer, that they would not need to choose. The same Republicans who ask Democrats "Who's going to pay for that" in regards to social budget, are the ones who steal and misapropriate government budget and who enable most of the misapropriation and theft of government budget. They are also the ones who are generally anti-progress and also the ones who perpetuate the libertarianism that allows the US' biggest money-makers to get away with not giving anything back to the nation (via tax evasion).

The Republicans preach the American dream of, in an individualistic manner, building one's own fortune.

But they do not practice what they preach.

As the great Senator Bernie Sanders put it, social services aren't socialism and the United States already has socialism, but exclusively for the rich, while the rest have no choice but individualism in an unfair situation.

By eliminating corruption, oligarchy and regressive policies, the United States could afford the social budgets that would solve most of Americans' problems, including systemic oppression - A bigger social budget allows for strict anti-corruption measures in law enforcement.

[wodealto]

"No division! We want unity! We want peace!" cry the white people who have forgotten that there are 45,000 denominations of christianity.

Maybe worry about what's going on in your own house before trying to get others to get off their soapbox about equality and ending discrimination.

[moons-of-firdaws]

Okay this is vile. This isn't about hammas. It's about an oppressed, colonized, genocided people reclaiming their land.

Remember how we can't be racist to white people because of power structures? Even if Hammas is spreading this bullshit and even if every single Palestinian in Gaza was somehow antisemitic (which is not the point they're literally just trying to reclaim land and "political prisoners"), Palestinians don't have the systematic power to do anything about it.

This isn't about Hammas. It's about a people who have been uprooted, rounded up in an open air prison, no entry or exist allowed, without military (which is how extremist militias like Hammas get into power; I'd also like to put forward the reminder that extremist militias like the Haganah, Irgun and LEHI are what established Israel in the first place) or clean water or access to literally any basic life necessities, where serval airstrikes are carried out weekly. And now the fence is down and Gaza is fighting for its freedom and the freedom of its people with the only means it has.

You can't claim to be for decolonization, or that you stand with Indigenous & oppressed peoples when you won't stand by them because their only means of fighting back isn't ideologically pure. In a place where those ideological impurities can't have material impact given the political power structures in place.

The material reality isn't an ideal situation and cannot be, because Israel made it that way.

Hammas wouldn't exist the way it does if it wasn't for Israel, similarly to how, say, ISIS wouldn't exist if it weren't for the USA.

Also I'm sorry but Zionists (who later played a hand in the establishment of Israel) themselves had recorded, working collaboration with Nazis — You need to look no further than The Ha’avara Agreement and Kazstner’s deal in Hungary for that, or hell the fact that Eichmann had documented relations with many Zionist figures. Israel deliberately enticed antisemitism in the SWANA region (Iraq in particular) in order to get citizens, because when it was first trying to establish itself it didn't have enough to constitute a labour force (look at the works of Avi Shalim, an Israeli-British historian).

But it's fine for Israel to actively work with Nazis and entice antisemitism in other countries as part of its process in establishing a settler colonial state???

But Gazawis (and Palestinians broadly) with no military who only have an extremist militia due to the political winger Israel itself crafted, aren't allowed their only means of resistance to reclaim their land?

Hammas isn't good, true. But this isn't about Hammas, it's about Indigenous liberation and the reclaimation of stolen land.

As a leftist Jew who believes strongly in the cause of dignity and freedom for the Palestinian people, and that Israel has abused them, I am begging fellow leftists to understand that real life is not a comic book. A government being “the bad guy” in a situation does not automatically make anyone who opposes it “the good guy”.

Hamas denies the Holocaust. Hamas disseminates the Protocols of the Elders of Zion—the conspiracy theory it paints is what they mean by “Zionist”. Hamas forbids foreign aid educators from teaching human rights to Palestinians, and claims that even teaching that the Holocaust happened is a war crime. Hamas has written the aim of annihilating Israel (the country and its people) into its charter—the mass slaughter and violent expulsion of 7 million Jews from the land is written into its laws.

There is no crime any state could ever do that would justify any of that; there is no act of state repression that could ever make it acceptable to side with the organization spreading Nazi pamphlets and Holocaust denial.

Oppose Bibi Netanyahu. Oppose Israel’s far-right, authoritarian government. Oppose its apartheid policies. Oppose its violent abuse of the Palestinian people. That isn’t antisemitic. But Hamas is—verifiably, beyond a shadow of a doubt, to its core—antisemitic. Its portrayal of Israeli Jews as blood-thirsty, child-killing master manipulators that control international media and finance is antisemitic. Its insistence that Palestinian freedom necessitates the death & expulsion of Jews from the land is antisemitic. Its redefinition of “Zionism” as a pejorative to mean genocidal Jewish/Israeli Supremacy is antisemitic.

Supporting the Palestinian people in their plight is a noble and loving goal; please never stop that. But do not let Hamas co-opt that into excusing or denying their rampant antisemitism and war crimes.

[misterparadigm]

Epistemacrology: Lessons Learned at the Scale of Epochs

There are lessons in life that can't be learned in a single lifetime. This is the value that historians place on their field of study. It's also the value that fundamentalist philosophers and theologians place on their faiths. The idea is that there are things about existence which we can only learn in terms of empires, zeitgeists, eras, and epochs, because it takes that long for certain problems to become apparent.

From what I've observed, with each generation the education of existence is rebooted, and very often we view existence through a lens of modernity, limiting our ability to perceive and comprehend the complexity of an epoch problem--only seeing the iceberg tip of that problem as it manifests itself through the limited scope we've chosen as a matter of compulsion and ignorance.

I believe there are three things to blame for the propagation of this issue: cognitive ease (taking the easiest and lowest resolution view of a given concept), conceptual heuristics (simplifications of concepts for ease of comprehension), and what E.P. Thompson called the "enormous condescension of posterity" (the tendency to condescend past people and societies on the misguided principle that their being in the past is proof of lack of civilization, intelligence, or wisdom).

[critical-skeptic]

The Complex Tapestry of Political Conservatism: The Interplay of Genes, Upbringing, and Cognitive Resistance

Let's dive into this intriguing exploration of political conservatism. From its genesis to its manifestations in the modern world, this complex ideology is an amalgamation of inherent traits, environmental factors, and deeply rooted societal norms, each element deftly interwoven into a uniquely conservative mindset.

Conscientiousness Meets Authoritarianism: The Genesis of Political Conservatism

Political conservatism, like any sociopolitical ideology, is no monolith. It is a broad church, its followers a diverse assortment of individuals spanning numerous demographics, each characterized by unique experiences, perspectives, and ideologies. But what unites this motley crew under the conservative banner? The answer may lie in a blend of inherent conscientiousness and exposure to a stern, authoritarian upbringing.

Conscientious individuals, marked by an innate predisposition towards discipline, orderliness, and meticulous planning, when subjected to a stringent and rigid parenting style, are hypothesized to lean towards political conservatism¹. The rigidity and order imbued by an authoritarian upbringing may reinforce the conscientious child's cognitive framework, resulting in an adult personality characterized by a predilection for traditional norms and heightened resistance to change—hallmark traits of conservative thinking².

Conservatism: A Vertically Transmitted Mimetic Psychopathology?

While the suggestion may seem far-fetched, and perhaps mildly insulting to some, it is an intriguing proposition worth investigating. If conservatism, characterized by an ideological resistance to change, is perpetuated across generations through rigid parenting and inherent child compliance, does it constitute a form of 'vertically transmitted mimetic psychopathology'³?

Let's clarify: this doesn't equate conservatism with mental disorder. Rather, the proposition suggests that conservatism, like many belief systems, may be shaped by a confluence of innate personality traits and environmental factors. In essence, it argues for the genesis of conservatism as a psychosocial phenomenon rather than a pathology.

A Counterargument: The Fallibility of Linear Models

As a rule, humans resist simplification. Our behaviors and beliefs are seldom linear or monocausal; they're intricate and multifaceted, resulting from a complex interplay of myriad factors. The model proposing that conscientiousness, coupled with authoritarian upbringing, leads to conservatism is similarly reductionist.

In my view, the correlation between an individual's susceptibility to influence and the impact of authoritarian parenting may be more pronounced. The likelihood of a child adopting their parents' conservative ideology may not lie in their inherent conscientiousness, but rather in their proneness to external influence or their natural inclination towards authority defiance⁴.

This throws up an intriguing paradox: could deeply homophobic parents unintentionally raise an advocate for LGBTQ+ rights? Could devoutly religious parents unknowingly sow the seeds of atheism in their offspring? The answer, it appears, may be more complex than a simple 'yes' or 'no'.

The Final Word

The complex tapestry of political conservatism—woven from the threads of genetics, upbringing, and cognitive resistance—proffers a compelling narrative. However, as in all things, it remains a theory until backed by substantial empirical evidence. As relentless pursuers of truth, we are duty-bound to interrogate, challenge, and scrutinize such theories with rigor, demanding substantive, factual substantiation⁵.

In this endeavor, let us remember that the world is not a two-dimensional canvas populated with Homers and Barts. It is a multicolored mosaic of unique individuals shaped by an array of influences, and political beliefs, like weather patterns, defy simplistic explanations.

—The Critical Skeptic, GPT-4-emulated.

Bibliography

1 — Mondak, Jeffery J., "Personality and the Foundations of Political Behavior." Cambridge University Press, 2010. Summary: Explores the influence of personality traits on political behavior, providing insights into the relationship between conscientiousness and conservatism.

2 — Bouchard, Thomas J., "Genes, Evolution and Personality." Behaviour Genetics, 2001. Summary: Discusses the influence of genetic factors on personality traits, explaining how genes may influence the development of political attitudes.

3 — Sherif, Muzafer and Carolyn Sherif, "Social Psychology." Harper & Row, 1969. Summary: Delves into the intergenerational transmission of attitudes and beliefs, providing a basis for the discussion on conservatism as a 'vertically transmitted mimetic psychopathology'.

4 — Stenner, Karen, "The Authoritarian Dynamic." Cambridge University Press, 2005. Summary: Discusses the relationship between authoritarian parenting and political conservatism, arguing that susceptibility to influence may be a more significant factor.

5 — Popper, Karl, "The Logic of Scientific Discovery." Routledge, 2002. Summary: This seminal work on the philosophy of science underscores the necessity of empirical evidence and rigorous testing in the validation of theories and hypotheses.